‘Ted Lasso’ Lands Among the 21st Century’s Top 10 TV Shows in NYT Readers’ Ranking
The Apple TV+ comedy has been placed among the ten highest-ranked television shows of the 21st century by New York Times readers, a result that is already prompting debate about its legacy and standing.
Ted Lasso has entered a conversation usually reserved for television’s most celebrated dramas and landmark comedies. In a ranking assembled from New York Times reader responses, the Apple TV+ series was named among the ten best television shows of the 21st century. The result has immediately invited argument, not only about the show itself, but also about what viewers expect from a modern classic.
The ranking is likely to divide audiences because “top ten” lists are never simply measurements of quality. They are also records of affection, memory and personal connection. A show can become important to viewers for reasons that are difficult to capture in a score or a critical consensus. In the case of Ted Lasso, its supporters see a warm, optimistic comedy that reached a broad audience. Its skeptics may question whether that warmth is enough to place it beside the defining television series of the era.
The source material identifies the ranking as a choice by NYT readers, rather than presenting it as a definitive verdict from critics or an official industry body. That distinction matters. Reader polls reflect the tastes and experiences of the people who participate, and their selections can look different from lists created by professional reviewers, television historians or awards voters. The result does not settle the debate over Ted Lasso’s place in television history. Instead, it shows that a significant group of viewers believes the series deserves to be part of that discussion.
There is also a difference between being included in the top ten and being declared the single best show of the century. The available information confirms Ted Lasso’s inclusion, but it does not establish its exact position within the ranking. That leaves room for viewers to debate whether the show sits near the top, toward the bottom of the ten, or somewhere in between. Even without that detail, the placement is notable: appearing at all means the series has made an impression strong enough to survive comparison with a wide range of modern television.
The phrase “of the 21st century” gives the list an especially ambitious scope. It asks readers to compare shows from a period shaped by changing viewing habits, expanding streaming services and a growing number of original series. A comedy competing in that conversation is not being judged only against other sitcoms. It is being considered alongside television from different genres and with different ambitions. That makes Ted Lasso’s presence both flattering and provocative.
The show’s supporters are likely to point to its emotional accessibility. Ted Lasso is widely associated with an encouraging, humane tone, and that quality appears central to the affection it inspires. The series presents itself as a comedy, but its appeal is not limited to jokes. Its place in the reader ranking suggests that many viewers value the feelings a show creates as much as its formal achievements. For those viewers, optimism is not a weakness or a distraction. It is the reason the series remains memorable.
That appeal can also explain why the ranking has sparked debate. Television audiences do not always agree on the value of an uplifting story. Some viewers prefer work that is harsher, more complicated or more resistant to easy reassurance. Others see emotional generosity as a demanding creative choice, especially when a series must sustain that mood over time. The disagreement over Ted Lasso may therefore reflect a larger argument about the role of comfort in contemporary television.
The series’ supporters and detractors may also be responding to different standards. One viewer might rank a program according to its cultural influence, while another might focus on writing, performances or consistency. Someone else may care most about rewatchability and the connection a show builds with its audience. A reader ranking does not necessarily reveal which of those standards guided each vote. It simply demonstrates that, for the people who selected Ted Lasso, the program cleared whatever personal threshold they use when identifying an outstanding show.
Its home on Apple TV+ adds another dimension to the conversation. The platform is specifically identified in the source material, making the show’s inclusion a reminder that a series does not need to come from traditional broadcast television or a long-established cable network to enter a wider cultural conversation. Ted Lasso’s appearance in the ranking reinforces the importance of streaming-era programming in the way audiences now discuss television.
At the same time, the ranking should not be treated as proof that every viewer agrees with the selection. The headline surrounding the story uses playful, provocative language, signaling that the result is intended to inspire a reaction. Lists of the “best” shows are built for discussion as much as for agreement. The strongest response may come from viewers who are surprised by Ted Lasso’s inclusion, as well as from fans who feel the show has finally received the recognition they believe it deserves.
That tension is part of the life of any popular series. When a program is still remembered warmly enough to appear in a major reader poll, it has moved beyond the question of whether every episode satisfies every viewer. It becomes a reference point in arguments about what television can accomplish and what audiences want from it. Ted Lasso’s position in this ranking indicates that its reputation is not limited to the people who watched it casually. For some readers, it represents a defining television experience.
The available report does not provide the full list of ten shows, the number of votes cast or the rules used to organize the ranking. Those omissions make it impossible to draw precise conclusions about the poll’s scale or comparative margin. They also counsel against treating the result as a scientific measurement of television quality. The clearest conclusion is narrower and more useful: NYT readers placed Ted Lasso in the top ten, and that choice was strong enough to generate a public argument about the show’s standing.
That argument is likely to continue because Ted Lasso occupies an unusual position in discussions of modern television. It is recognizable as a comedy, yet the enthusiasm surrounding it is tied to more than humor. Its supporters speak about the broader experience of watching it, including the sense of encouragement associated with its tone. When viewers use that kind of language to describe a series, they are not only evaluating its construction. They are explaining why it mattered to them.
Personal attachment can be an underappreciated part of television history. Critics may identify innovations, influential performances or changes in storytelling, but viewers remember programs through their own lives. A show may become a favorite because it offered relief during a difficult period, created a shared experience with friends or family, or simply delivered a feeling that other programs did not. The reader ranking gives those personal responses a visible place in the larger conversation.
Of course, affection alone does not end criticism. A beloved series can still be debated for its pacing, humor, themes or execution. Ranking Ted Lasso among the top ten does not require viewers to regard it as flawless. It only indicates that the show’s strengths, as perceived by the readers who selected it, outweighed any reservations. That is one reason lists can be revealing: they show which qualities audiences are willing to defend even when consensus is impossible.
The disagreement may also come from the sheer variety of television made since the beginning of the century. Viewers have had access to more kinds of stories and more ways to watch them, making a single hierarchy increasingly difficult to maintain. A show can be influential without being universally beloved, while another can be deeply cherished without transforming the medium. Ted Lasso’s reader-generated placement emphasizes that cultural importance and personal enjoyment do not always follow the same path.
For Apple TV+, the ranking offers a reminder of the value of a series that can inspire sustained loyalty. The source material does not describe any broader corporate impact, ratings performance or awards history, so those questions remain outside this report. What can be said is that the show’s identification with the platform is part of its public identity. Its appearance in the list gives the service a visible representative in a discussion about the most admired television of the century so far.
Whether Ted Lasso belongs in the top ten will depend on the standard each viewer brings to the argument. Those who prize optimism, accessibility and emotional warmth may regard the selection as obvious. Those who expect a top-ten show to reshape television or withstand every criticism may remain unconvinced. Neither reaction invalidates the reader ranking. The poll records a choice, while the debate reveals the different ways people define excellence.
In the end, the most significant part of the result may be less the precise ranking than the conversation it has created. Ted Lasso is no longer being discussed only as an Apple TV+ comedy that audiences enjoyed. It is being weighed against the larger legacy of 21st-century television. That is a demanding comparison, and it guarantees disagreement. But inclusion in the NYT readers’ top ten gives the series something every show on a “best of the century” list seeks: evidence that its audience believes it deserves to be remembered.